Page 1 of 17

Suggested Updates to the Outstanding 

Dose Reconstruction and Special 

Exposure Cohort Issues for 

Consideration by the Work Group 

on Hanford Site Profile and SEC

Response Paper

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

November 15, 2017

Robert Burns, CHP

Michael Kubiak

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

Joseph Fitzgerald

Sanford Cohen & Associates, Inc.

Reviewed by Charles D. Nelson

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 2 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

BACKGROUND

The most recent update of the overall issues matrix for the Hanford site was prepared by SC&A 

and submitted to the Work Group on Hanford Site Profile and SEC (hereafter, the Work Group) 

in August, 2011. SC&A provided subsequent updates to the Work Group in April and October 

of 2013 following the addition of an “83.14” class to the SEC that extended coverage to all 

Hanford workers through December 31, 1983. That class was added via SEC Petition SEC00201 and had an effective date of September 22, 2012. The subsequent issues updates provided 

to the Work Group in 2013 addressed the period calendar 1984 through calendar 1990 with 

respect to several of the remaining SEC-related issues in the matrix. Not all of the open issues 

identified in the August, 2011 matrix were included, however. 

Since the 2013 updates to the Work Group, NIOSH and SC&A have made a number of visits to 

Hanford for site research purposes. These activities have included reviews of both physical 

records and electronic databases, as well as numerous interviews with current and former 

Hanford site workers. As a result of these site research activities an additional class of workers 

was identified and added to the SEC in 2015. That class was added via Petition SEC-00226 and 

had an effective date of June 21, 2015. It covered Hanford workers that did not work for one of 

the site prime contractors, the Department of Energy, or the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory during the period calendar 1984 through 1990. 

Since the addition of the most-recent 83.14 class to the SEC in 2015, NIOSH and SC&A have 

engaged in a number of exchanges and discussions for the purpose of consolidating all of the 

dose reconstruction and SEC issues that remain open for the Hanford site. A principal goal for 

this effort was to develop updates for each of these issues for the Work Group’s consideration 

that reflected the SEC period currently under evaluation, the site research progress that has been 

made since the last updates provided to the Work Group, and the addition of the 83.14 SEC class 

in 2015, for entry into the Board Review System (BRS) for tracking. This document presents the 

consensus updates for that purpose as agreed upon between SC&A and NIOSH. 

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to present proposed input to the BRS for the special exposure 

cohort- and radiation dose reconstruction-related issues pertaining to the Hanford Site that 

remain to be resolved for consideration by the Hanford Work Group. The SEC issues are 

currently being addressed within the context of Petition SEC-00057-3 for workers that worked 

for one of the Hanford site prime contractors during calendar 1984 through calendar 1990. The 

proposed entries reflect consensus input agreed upon between SC&A and NIOSH as discussed in 

the Background section above. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 3 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SUGGESTED BRS ENTRIES FOR HANFORD SITE ISSUES

This section discusses each of the unresolved dose reconstruction- and SEC-related issues for the 

Hanford site identified in SC&A’s update to the WG dated August 19, 2011. For each issue the 

discussion begins with the applicable title and description from the most recent updates provided 

to the Work Group, i.e. from August, 2011 or October, 2013, as appropriate. A proposed title 

and description to be entered into the BRS then follow, representing consensus input from 

SC&A and NIOSH. The proposed BRS entries are then followed by a discussion providing 

additional information about the issue and the proposed input. For some issues the discussion 

includes recommendations from SC&A and NIOSH that the issue be closed or deleted. In these 

cases there is no proposed description, pending input from the Work Group regarding whether 

the issue will remain open.

Matrix Issue 3

Previous title: Thorium-232 internal exposure from January 1, 1960 onward 

Previous description

Data are not adequate from up to at least December 31, 1983. Production and exposure 

potential may have been intermittent. There may have been exposure during remediation of 

certain areas; remains OPEN for most Hanford workers from 1984 onwards. Validity of 

uranium bioassay use for Th dose not established by NIOSH. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This is a SEC issue relating to potential thorium exposures during remediation of certain areas, 

the potential use of thorium in nuclear fuel fabrication and related operations within the 300 

Area during 1984 through 1990, and possible thorium use in other areas at Hanford during that 

time. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH recommend that the scope of this issue be expanded from what it was 

previously to include investigation of potential operational use of thorium in nuclear fuel 

fabrication and related operations within the 300 Area during 1984 through 1990. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 4 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 4

Previous title: HEU – uranium intake estimation

Previous description

Alpha spectrometry data are available. The issue is whether workers who had exposure 

potential in the post-1983 period were monitored in this way. Remains OPEN and needs to be 

addressed during DR reviews (this issue remains under active review by NIOSH through 

onsite research). 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This is a SEC issue pertaining to whether workers who potentially received intakes of HEU 

during the post-1983 period were monitored by alpha spectrometry (for urinalysis) or by other 

appropriate means. It is contingent upon identification of a potential source of HEU intakes by 

Hanford workers during 1984 through 1990. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agreed to propose updating the wording of this issue to reflect that, thus far, a 

source term representing potential intakes of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) has not been 

identified at Hanford for the period 1984 through 1990 and the issue was therefore contingent 

upon whether such a source or sources existed. 

Matrix Issue 6

Previous title: Uranium intake estimation to 1990 for unmonitored workers 

Previous description

Uranium bioassay data are adequate for dose reconstruction and coworker models. Some 

revisions are needed to ensure that NIOSH’s approach is claimant favorable for dose 

assignment to unmonitored workers. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 5 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: Estimation of intakes of depleted through low-enriched uranium for 

unmonitored workers (non-SEC issue)

Proposed description 

Data are available. The issue pertains to the question if uranium doses assignments for 

unmonitored workers are favorable to the claimant. This is not a SEC issue. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH recommend revising the title of this issue to clarify that it pertains to depleted 

through low-enriched uranium to better differentiate it from Issue Number 4, which pertains to 

highly-enriched uranium. 

Matrix Issue 7

Previous title: U-233 intakes 

Previous description

Alpha spectrometry data are available. The issue is whether workers who had exposure 

potential in the post-1983 period were monitored in this way. Remains OPEN and needs to be 

addressed during DR reviews (this issue remains under active review by NIOSH through 

onsite research). 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This is a SEC issue pertaining to potential sources of U-233 intakes during 1984 through 1990, 

and the adequacy of Hanford’s internal monitoring practices for U-233 in the event such 

sources existed. It is contingent upon identification of a potential source of U-233 intakes by 

Hanford workers during 1984 through 1990. 

Discussion

NIOSH and SC&A agreed to propose updating the wording of this issue to reflect that, thus far, a 

source term representing potential intakes of uranium-233 has not been identified at Hanford for 

the period 1984 through 1990 and the issue was therefore contingent upon whether such a source 

or sources existed. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 6 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 8

Previous title: Recycled uranium intake estimation

Previous description

Data from 1970–1972 exist for estimating claimant favorable trace contaminant ratios. 

NIOSH should use these data instead of late 1980s data. Reviews of DRs need to confirm that 

this approach is being used. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion 

SC&A and NIOSH concur that this issue can be resolved by agreement to use trace contaminant

ratios for the period 1970 – 1972, and therefore recommend to the Work Group that it be closed 

for SEC purposes. NIOSH should verify the implementation of this agreement by performing 

dose reconstruction reviews or the issuance of dose reconstruction work instructions to verify or 

assure that the previously agreed-upon trace contamination ratios are being used. SC&A and 

NIOSH therefore propose to the Hanford Work Group that this issue be placed in abeyance 

pending proof of implementation. 

Matrix Issue 9

Previous title: Neptunium-237 intakes, 1958 to 1972 

Previous description

Extensive onsite research concluded that Np was handled during the 1984-1990 timeframe in 

at least three locations: FFTF test assemblies, at PNL and HEDL in research, and at PUREX 

(storage and maintenance). Substantial progress made, but further NIOSH onsite review

continues to characterize the PUREX source term and whether bioassay data exists. This issue 

remains OPEN for this time period. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 7 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: Neptunium-237 intakes 

Proposed description 

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that concerns over potential Np-237 intakes at FFTF and 

PNL have been addressed, and the work that has been done to address this issue for the Purex 

plant was at a point where it could be brought to closure. NIOSH and SC&A therefore 

recommend to the Work Group that the scope of this issue be defined as a need to document the 

findings regarding the potential for Np-237 intakes at FFTF, PNL, and Purex during 1984 

through 1990 with the expectation that a recommendation for closure of this SEC issue would 

follow. 

Matrix Issue 10

Previous title: Tritium intake estimation from 1949 onwards 

Previous description

Issue resolved until 1983 and for some workers until 1990 (due to the grant of various SECs). 

Issue of tritium dose assignment for most workers from 1984 onwards remains OPEN. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 8 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This issue pertains to the question of tritium dose assignment in the event sources of Special 

Tritium Compounds (STCs) representing a potential for worker intakes are identified at 

Hanford during the period 1984 through 1990. The issue is resolved until 1983 and for some 

workers until 1990 through the grant of various SECs. The issue stems from a statement in the 

Hanford internal dosimetry TBD regarding a potential for metal (zirconium, specifically) 

tritides to have been associated with work under the Tritium Target Program that began in 

1988. 

In the event a source term for potential intakes of STCs by Hanford workers during 1984 

through 1990 is identified, an evaluation of the sufficiency of tritium bioassay data for affected 

workers would be warranted to determine if ORAUT-OTIB-0066, “Calculation of Dose from 

Intakes of Special Tritium Compounds”, could be applied. If so, this issue would be a matter 

of dose assignment and not a SEC issue. The SEC status of this issue is therefore conditional, 

depending on the availability of sufficient tritium bioassay data, in the event a source of STC 

intakes is discovered. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH propose to the Work Group that the SEC status of this issue be considered 

conditional depending on if a source of potential worker intakes of special tritium compounds is 

identified and, if so, if sufficient bioassay data exist for the potentially affected workers. 

Matrix Issue 11

Previous title: Promethium-147 

Previous description

Contrary to the TBD, Pm-147 occurred during 1972–1975. NIOSH intake assignment is not 

claimant favorable. Incidents are documented. NIOSH needs to address dose reconstruction 

for Pm-147 incidents. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 9 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that this issue is not applicable for the period 1984 onward 

and therefore recommend to the Work Group that it be closed. It was thought that a 

recommendation for closure of this issue had previously been made, but a review of transcripts 

from prior meetings of the Hanford Work Group did not identify such. 

Matrix Issue 12

Previous title: Sr-90, Cs- 137, MFP intake estimation 

Previous description

Extensive data are available. This issue is CLOSED. In reviewing DRs, a check needs to be 

made if workers exposed during incidents have adequate bioassay data. Data adequacy for 

coworker models needs to be established. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH recommend to the Work Group that this issue be held in abeyance until the 

verification issues are addressed to ensure implementation. This is not a SEC issue. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 10 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 13

Previous title: Tank farm alpha contamination 

Previous description

Site expert interviews indicate that tank farm exposures, including alpha-emitting radionuclide 

intakes (such as those from resuspension), may have been missed. This issue remains OPEN 

for most workers from 1984 onward, except those granted an SEC from 1984-1990. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that this issue is subsumed by other matrix items (e.g. 

numbers 3, 7, 9, and 12) and therefore recommend to the Work Group that it be deleted. 

Matrix Issue 14

Previous title: Plutonium intake estimation

Previous description

Coworker models need to be evaluated from an SEC standpoint (e.g., adequacy of the REX 

database for coworker models). This applies from 1984 onward for most workers. Coworker 

models need to be examined regarding adequacy of data. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

No change. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 11 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that this issue should remain open as a SEC issue until 

review of the applicable Hanford coworker methods against the new implementation guide is 

completed. 

Matrix Issue 16

Previous title: Cm-244 

Previous description

Exposure potential existed until at least 1978. No data for 1973. Sparse up to 1983. 

Coworker model may be feasible for 1984– 1990. NIOSH has not given adequate justification 

for using Pu data for Np intake. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending: see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that this issue is not applicable for the period 1984 onward 

and therefore recommend to the Work Group that it be closed. 

Matrix Issue 18

Previous title: External exposure geometry 

Previous description

Site expert evidence indicates significant geometry issues in some circumstances that may 

prevent film badge or TLD from registering relevant organ dose. This is a site profile issue. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 12 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This issue pertains to external exposure geometries, and the use of appropriate correction 

factors, for different job types. This is a site profile issue. It is not a SEC issue. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that this is a complex-wide issue, i.e. that it applies to sites 

beyond Hanford. 

Matrix Issue 19

Previous title: Lack of adequate monitoring: Petitioner issue 

Previous description

Coworker model adequacy from the SEC point of view needs to be evaluated in general and 

specifically in light of petitioner affidavits. External data are adequate. Internal data 

addressed in other matrix items. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This is a petitioner issue pertaining to the use of coworker models in the Hanford site profile. 

Coworker methods will be reviewed against the NIOSH implementation guide for coworker 

models once it becomes finalized. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement that at this time this is not a SEC issue. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 13 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 20

Previous title: Skin contamination 

Previous description

Site expert interviews indicate unusual potential for skin exposure in some maintenance work. 

This needs to be evaluated against available data. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This is a SEC issue pertaining to the adequacy of monitoring data for skin contamination that 

resulted from radiological incidents involving primary cooling water at the Hanford N 

Reactor. Site data indicate considerable potential for skin contamination during maintenance 

work at N Reactor. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agree this issue should remain as a standalone SEC issue. 

Matrix Issue 21

Previous title: Missing records – routine (Petitioner issue)

Previous description

SEC-specific analysis for Hanford is needed to verify that the approaches specified are 

bounding doses (or more accurate than bounding doses) for all members of the proposed class. 

Review of box labels of destroyed records indicates vast majority are not relevant or pre-July 

1, 1972. Some boxes do not have clear date for contents. Some boxes may have had relevant 

data. Unclear if duplicates exist. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 14 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending – see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agree there is no clear indication of destroyed records, and that such 

evaluations are a standard part of the SEC evaluation process as required in the NIOSH Dose 

Reconstruction implementation guide and implementing procedures. SC&A and NIOSH 

therefore recommend that this issue be deleted. 

Matrix Issue 22

Previous title: Missing incident records

Previous description

DOE files of claimants who have affidavits in the Petition need to be examined. Data 

completeness for incidents needs to be checked. This also links to potential destruction of 

records and existence of duplicate records. Specific incidents need to be evaluated, including 

a criticality in the 1950s. 

Individual DOE-supplied claimant records examined contain almost all incidents mentioned in 

CATIs or in REX database. The REX database is not detailed regarding incidents. No pattern 

of omitting incidents from personnel records was detected. 

Proposed title: Radiological incidents

Proposed description 

This is a SEC issue pertaining to the question if sufficient bioassays were taken for potential 

worker internal exposures from minor radiological incidents. 

Discussion

The title and description of this issue has been updated to reflect the period 1984 through 1990 

that is currently under evaluation. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 15 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 23

Previous title: REX database adequacy and representativeness for coworker models 

Previous description

Coworker models are based on the REX database. The representativeness of the REX 

database for estimating coworker doses needs to be examined in the SEC context. This issue is 

addressed in the other matrix items. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Coworker models are based on the REX database. The representativeness of the REX 

database for estimating coworker doses needs to be examined in the SEC context. This issue 

will be encompassed through review of the Hanford coworker methods against the NIOSH 

implementation guide for coworker models. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agree that this issue will be covered by the review of the Hanford coworker 

methods against the NIOSH implementation guide for coworker models that will be performed 

once the guide is finalized. 

Matrix Issue 25

Previous title: Miscellaneous radionuclides (e.g., Cr-51, Ru-106, Ce-144, Co-60) 

Previous description

Adequacy of the TBD approach for bounding doses needs to be assessed. Some radionuclides 

have adequate data from 1983 or 1984 (e.g., Co-60). Coworker model is needed for MFP and 

activation products for the 200 Area, including tank farm workers, and in waste handling and 

processing buildings in the 300 Area. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 16 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

This issue involves a review of the methods presented in the Hanford site profile for assigning 

internal dose from fission and activation product nuclides, including the use of any coworker 

methods. Coworker methods will be reviewed against the NIOSH implementation guide for 

coworker models once it becomes finalized. This is not a SEC issue otherwise. 

Discussion

In 2011 SC&A noted that more complete radionuclide monitoring seemed to have been initiated 

in 1983 or 1984 to cover the more unusual radionuclides present at Hanford. SC&A and NIOSH 

agree that this issue involves a need to examine coworker models for data adequacy and claimant 

favorability for most workers from 1984 onward for assigning internal dose from fission and 

activation product nuclides, including the use of any coworker methods. SC&A and NIOSH 

further agree that coworker methods will be addressed by the review of the Hanford coworker 

methods against the NIOSH implementation guide for coworker models that will be performed 

once the guide is finalized. 

Matrix Issue 26

Previous title: Data completeness

Previous description

The ER cites individual dose records and other sources of data. Principal reliance is on 

individual dose records for the most part. Completeness of individual dose records may need 

investigation. This item has been subsumed into the other matrix items. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

Pending – see discussion below. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agree that the concerns raised in this issue are an integral part of the SEC 

evaluation process via the SEC implementation guide and associated procedures. SC&A and 

NIOSH therefore recommend to the Work Group that this issue be deleted. 
Response Paper Suggested Updates to the Outstanding Dose 

Reconstruction and Special Exposure Cohort Issues 

for Consideration by the Work Group on Hanford 

Site Profile and SEC

November 15, 2017

Page 17 of 17

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Matrix Issue 27

Previous title: Building 324 leaks

Previous description

There were leaks of high-level waste in B-Cell, Building 324, including a major spill, 

reportedly in 1986. Decontamination of B cell began in the late 1980s. SC&A conducted 

interviews. HP coverage was reportedly good. Mixed fission product monitoring data exist 

for the mid-1980s when the major B-Cell spill occurred. Some specific radionuclides may not 

have data. There were earlier leaks under A- and C-Cells. The soil under B-Cell was found to 

be contaminated in 2010. NIOSH should verify whether the workers involved, including those 

dealing with the A- and C-Cell leaks, were monitored and whether the data that exist can be 

used with claimant-favorable assumptions to estimate the incident-related doses. 

Proposed title: No change 

Proposed description 

No change. 

Discussion

SC&A and NIOSH agree that this SEC issue has been thoroughly investigated and is now at a 

stage where it needs to be fully documented to close out remaining items.